help for NRP

Hi.
I have a child age 3 who spends 4 nights with me every other week and half of school holidays. The yearly split is approx 30/70 in XWs favour.

I recently applied for a court order to get contact "defined" which it was but my request for a "shared residence order" was refuted and a "no order" principle was given by the judge. Thus, contact is defined but neither parent has "sole residence."

My initial request was for a 50/50 contact split but she was having none of that !!!

My issue is thus...

XW receives £130+ pcm from me via CSA, 100% of the child benefit claim and 100% of the child tax credit claim.

Plus, she is now stating that should things such as school trips fall on a day of my contact time, then it will be down to me to pay.

In short, XW receives over £250 pcm towards "upbringing" where I receive nothing for the 30% of time he is in my care. I have spoken with the relevant agencies (CSA, child benefit office etc) who gave the standard response of "thats how it is as she is the primary carer" etc etc.

But to me, this does not seem right. Why should one parent reap over £250 pcm in aid but the other have to pay out and receive no help at all?

Am I missing something or is the system really this unfair.

p.s. yes she does work and is cohabiting with a full time wage earner.
Please note, although no boardcode and smiley buttons are shown, they are still useable

The way it works is you would get reductions for the amount of nights per yr you have the children.

If 1 parent has them 100 nights and the other 265 who has the bigest cost ?I don't agree with this lets stick to the £100 the CSA have said nope because at the end of the day had we all stayed with our ex's noone would question who should pay for that school trip the child would of gone regardless and i think the child should still be allowed to go no matter whom pays it.

Its not down to anyone else providing for your child thats mum and dad's job , same way as it's not fair when a NRP moves in with someone who has kids and the bio kids CM goes down by a % for the relevant other children.So the CSA rules are unfair on both sides.

I think it's a valid point. CM isn't really the problem, it's the fact that the NRP is not entitled to any state help. A few years ago there was one father who lived off a tin of baked beans 5 days a week so he could afford to have his children twice a week. Courts here and in the EU have found it discriminatory but the Government say the administration is too expensive to change.

I sympathise with your position.

I, too, find it galling the way that things are worked out. The system if grossly unfair but is, I believe, perpetuated because the Courts and Govts don't want the extra work and hassle of a fair system. Plus, the NRP tends to be the father, and we don't have the equivalent of the feminist lobby that would get things changed (no votes in it).

I'm in the absurd position where I'm on sick pay yet still have to pay her my 25%*6/7 whereas a similar calculation for her (25%*2/7) is higher, let alone the 25% of child benefits that she gets but relate to the time my boys are with me. And to cap it, she recently gave me a list of 'extras' she expects me to pay for or the boys don't go (school trips, Scouts, school clubs, kit for school clubs etc).

As to advice, all I can say is that the system sucks and the sooner you accept it and get on making the best of it then the better things will be. I try to ask myself what will my boys say when they're grown up, and so far I think I've acted in what I see is their interests rather than mine, but that sense of unfairness and lack of control lingers still. I know this may sound trite and simplistic, but that's the best I've found to keep me going.

Good luck.

Ian